Fielding v. State
1992 WL 356779, 1992 Alas. App. LEXIS 87, 842 P.2d 614 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a criminal case, when a court takes judicial notice of a fact that constitutes an essential element of the offense, it must instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept that fact as conclusive. An instruction that frames the element as a settled matter of fact invades the province of the jury and constitutes reversible error.
Facts:
- Jim Fielding was accused of driving a motor vehicle at a time when his driver's license was suspended.
- A required element of the offense is that the driving must occur on a 'highway or vehicular way or area.'
- The state alleged that Fielding drove his vehicle from the parking lot of the Eagle River Department of Motor Vehicles onto the Glenn Highway.
- Fielding's defense was that he drove only within the boundaries of the DMV parking lot.
- The central factual dispute at trial was whether Fielding drove on the Glenn Highway or remained confined to the parking lot.
Procedural Posture:
- Jim Fielding was prosecuted for driving while license suspended.
- A jury trial was held in the District Court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the defense objected to the judge's proposed jury instruction that took judicial notice of the Glenn Highway's status as a 'highway.'
- The trial judge overruled the objection and gave the instruction to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Jim Fielding.
- Fielding (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Alaska, with the State of Alaska as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's jury instruction, which takes judicial notice of an essential element of a criminal offense and states that element as a conclusive fact, violate a defendant's right to have a jury decide every element of the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Coats
Yes, the instruction violates the defendant's right to have a jury decide every element of the crime. The court's instruction amounted to a directed verdict for the prosecution on an essential element of the charge, which is that the act occurred on a 'highway.' According to Alaska Evidence Rule 203(c), in a criminal case, a jury must be instructed that it 'may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.' By stating conclusively that 'the Glenn Highway is a highway,' the trial court deprived Fielding of his right to have the jury, not the judge, find him guilty of every element of the offense. Such an error is not subject to harmless error analysis and is considered per se prejudicial, requiring reversal.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that the jury is the ultimate arbiter of fact for every element of a criminal offense. It strictly interprets the procedural requirements for taking judicial notice in criminal trials, prohibiting judges from presenting any element of a crime to the jury as a settled fact. By classifying such an error as 'per se prejudicial,' the court establishes that a violation of this rule is a structural error that automatically warrants reversal, safeguarding the defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial against judicial encroachment.
